Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd: Admn 17 Jul 2009

The company had successfully appealed against a prohibition notice relating to its arrangements for working at height. By the time of the prohibition notice, it had implemented a plan satisfactory to the inspector.
Held: The tribunal had not focussed properly on the facts as at the inspector faced them, and had not give adequate regard to his expertise. He had been faced with a need for the supervision of the work. His notice should be amended accordingly, but in view of the arrangements, the notice should be cancelled.
Charles J
[2009] EWHC 2086 (Admin)
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Work at Height Regulations 2005
Citing:
CitedRailtrack Plc v Smallwood QBD 16-Feb-2001
It was not incorrect for an inspector to proceed to issue a prohibition notice to the rail operator, with regard to the use of a signal set, which had been deemed unsafe, even where the operator had given formal undertakings with regard to its’ use. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.372674